The rule of many is not good; one ruler let there be.
~ Ulysses, in Homer’s The Iliad, and again by Aristotle at the end of Book XII the Metaphysics.
Much is made over the alleged Evolian reversal of the roles of the castes. This in part stems from his portrayal of the regal initiation being above the sacerdotal initiation, which arises from a misreading of some Hindu texts as Coomaraswamy pointed out. Evola also objected to the necessity for the Holy Roman Emperor to be consecrated by the Pope. However, the consecration is not the problem, but the idea of two rulers is. As Guenon points out the The Lord of the World, the idea of a single head is certainly traditional and the split in the Middle Ages was a deviation. Guenon writes:
By the Middle Ages, supreme power had already become divided between the Empire and the Papacy. Such a division marks an organisation that is incomplete at its head since the common principle, on which the two powers depend, is missing.
So with the intent of completely putting this issue to rest, we will bring out the full meaning of Guenon’s point, and with a minor tweak, this will bring Evola completely in line with Tradition on this point. In La Tradizione Romana Guido de Giorgio dedicated a section of the book to the “Constitution of a Traditional Society”. The first three chapters deal with the three twice-born castes and the fourth with the idea of the “Capo” — Head, Chief, Leader. Beginning with Ulysses’ statement, de Giorgio makes these points.
- A single Chief in time corresponds to the supreme unity in eternity.
- Since God is pure contemplation, so inversely the Chief will make of his life a pure activity dedicated to the preservation of His order in the world.
- The Chief holds temporal power and supreme authority whose dominion embraces all of active life.
- His work depends on the highest virtue: Justice.
- He the the Prince of the Warriors, but his power is exercised over everyone.
- Although he arises from the Warrior caste, he is above all the castes.
- He is consecrated by the first caste.
- He leads the second caste in the protection and preservation of Traditional order.
- He guards the “Temple” and protects the contemplatives so that spiritual truths are available to all.
- He is absolutely autonomous and the priests own him obedience, just as do the other castes.
- The priests must not interfere in temporal affairs.
To summarize: although the Chief is consecrated by the priests, his power is by Divine Right. He holds temporal power over all. His is a life of activity, since he is the means through which God’s will “Providence” is accomplished. In other words, by his dominion and action, he does not experience privation.
Good point, John, the elusive philosopher-king. Perhaps the Templars embodied that ideal, maybe Marcus Aurelius or Frederick II. But even if that idea is attained in one individual, it never alters the fundamental subservience of temporal power to spiritual authority.
I was brought up to believe that the ideal was the warrior-scholar. This ideal is rarely or ever attained. Usually what you get is either an intelligent, knowledgeable, some-what cultured warrior or a scholar with a strong, stead-fast character.
In some families, rather than scholars giving birth to scholars, or warriors giving birth to warriors, you have scholars giving birth to warriors and warriors giving birth to scholars.
One thing that makes Evola attractive is that he is a scholar with a warrior’s temperament. I know nothing about his father, but perhaps his father was a warrior.
In families that produce both warriors and scholars, then one or the other temperament will rule in a given temperament, but the other temperament will be that of his father, and therefore the temperament to which he owes obedience.
Ted, we have indeed discussed Evola’s view on regal initiation, which is somewhat more nuanced than you suspect and which opened him up to some objections from Coomaraswamy. Nevertheless, Evola brings up valid points. Evola means, by this, that the king takes on priestly or spiritual roles. Unfortunately, you have made several erroneous claims which are not supported by that particular passage. Nothing has been censored: you made two nearly identical comments, the first was let through uncensored, the second was trashed. Since you did not accept your voluntarily banishment, you have been put on moderation. For your own benefit, dwell on these unsupportable claims you have made and learn from your mistakes.
1) You claim the kshatriya caste is the “solar” caste, when we have recently quoted Evola refering to the brahman, that is, the “solar caste” of spiritual leaders.
2) You claim the kshatriya caste is superior to the brahman. The consequences of this would be that the temporal realm is superior to the spiritual, something no traditional people would accept.
3) You have claimed that the three higher castes are race-based, rather than function-based (i.e., the kshatriya caste is a different race). This is contrary to Guenon, Evola and in particular, the research of Dumezil on the social organization of the Indo-European peoples.
4) You have inverted the relationship between “spirit” and “soul” without any warrant or understanding. It is true that certain alchemical texts — as Evola himself points out — reverse the meanings of the two words. Yet, it is not the “word” we are concerned with, but rather the underlying reality that the word is pointing to; that is unaltered.
I see my last post here was censored. Clogero gives no retraction or apology for his (deliberate?) misrepresentation of Evola’s position and then, to add insult to injury, censors the a post which directly quotes Evola to prove that he believed Royalty to be greater than the Priesthood. This, of course, it utterly shameful behavior.
Would a gentleman behave this way? It is deeply shocking that Cologero would present himself here as a traditionalist and has one who has spoken of the need to have one’s beliefs challenged. Like so many people in the modern world, he is hypocrite and an underhanded liar. How repulsive this “man” is!
Both Evola and Guenon would disown him in a second.
In Sintesi di dottrina della razza, Evola refers to the Brahman as “casta solare dei capi spirituali”. That is: “solar caste of spiritual leaders”.
http://www.theology.edu/journal/volume3/spirit.htm I think this should work.
I came across this interesting piece that serves to confirm the feminine nature of the Spirit within the Judeo-Christian tradition: http://www.theology.edu.journal/volume3/spirit.htm
This only makes sense since the other two figures of the Trinity are male. This also makes sense since the other Trinities all have only one female figure and two male or one male and one genderless figure.
Also I must point out to Matt that I was merely answering Will’s question with regard to the proper hierarchical arrangement of Body, Spirit and Soul.
@ Matt Can you cite some references where Evola refers to the spirit as masculine?
Ted,
Keep in mind the limitations of language and expression when it comes to the realm of metaphysical principles (as noted by Guenon and others), as seen with the soul and spirit. Even Evola recognizes this. Yes, in Hermetic Tradition, Evola denotes the soul as masculine, but in the rest of his writings, the soul is related to the feminine, and the the spirit with the masculine.
In “The Hermetic Tradition” Evola also quotes Bernard of Treviso, from his book “Parole Delaisse”, as saying: There is a Trinity in Unity and Unity in Trinity, and there we find BODY, SPIRIT and SOUL.” (my emphasis) Evola also quotes other alchemical texts in which this traditional hierarchy is found.
@ Will I do not rearrange anything. Chapter 12 of Evola’s “The Hermetic Tradition” is entitled Soul,Spirit and Body. On the first page of this chapter he says: “…let us declare that man carries Hermetically in his Soul the presence of the Solar and Golden force; in his Spirit he carries the Lunar and Mercurial force…” Of course, the Sun is a symbol of the masculine and Moon is a symbol of feminine. Traditional teaching asserts the superiority of the masculine vis-a-vis the feminine.
@ EXIT I should have said “Those who exalt the divine feminine over that of the male principle reject the world of tradition.” My mistake. That is what I mean to say.
There is one thing I need to clarify above. Most Westerners even if they do not know anything about our part of the world have heard about the notorious thugs. As I said above after the Islamic invasions in the North when cities were reduced to rubble, many people were at a loss and rendered completely destitute, not understanding what has been imposed as it is so alien to their way of life and thinking. The thugs are former disbanded soldiers who fought in Hindu armies. When the way of life is destroyed as to be reduced to being destitute, these people morphose to roving “thugs” as there is no livelihood for them anymore.
William Seelman’s accounts of thugs sacrificing to Kali are nothing but a Victorian mentality gone astray. Even today Westerners who have no compunction eating animals killed in mass in slaughterhouses, cringe when they see a Hindu sacrifice a goat and eat all the meat! It has always struck me as funny. So one can imagine a repressed culture as the Victorian in front of half-naked non Christians, the imagination is likely to run riot, and how could they even undrstand what is involved in the sacrifice of an animal, which involves eating all of the meat and wasting nothing?
I forgot to add above that this is the origin of the notorious thugs. These disbanded soldiers become bandits and roam in the countryside, and morphose thugs…sure they sacrificed to the gods and so on but I think the rest is just the work of a repressed victorian imagination.
Ted, Thank you for your response. But I’m afraid I didn’t state my question clearly enough. I was not trying to argue that the female principle is prior, but rather I was questioning the assignation of femininity to the spirit, and masculinity to the soul. While it may be the case that the Hebrew word for spirit is feminine, that is also the case with the Greek word for soul – psuche, or psyche. So I’m not sure we can rely on etymology here.
If we go with your assertion that the soul is masculine and the spirit is feminine, but that the masculine is prior and superior, then presumably we have to rearrange the traditional triad Body-Soul-Spirit to Body-Spirit-Soul. Are you asserting that the traditional ordering of these terms is in error?
Ted, you are an idiot. The divine male and female are both revered.
@Will
I have discussed this above. The feminine principle almost invariably come after or is an “emanation” of the masculine principle. Yin, the female principle comes from Yang, the male principle. Eve comes from Adam, the female principle of Binah in Kabbala is an emantion of the male principle of Chockmah.
In ancient Egypt, there are the Enneads, the nine creator gods and godesses. Osiris, the male, comes before Isis, the female. In Hinduism, the godess Shatki comes after the god Shiva. Shatkti,of course, representes “prakriti”, the power that generates or is active in the material world. Shakti is a sort of emanation of Shiva, who represents Purusha or the Atman.
Significanly, the Hebrew world for “spirit” is Ruach, which is a feminine noun. Tradition, of course, assigns a lesser role for the female principle than it does for the male principle. Zeus, not Hera, is the ruler of Olympus.
Those who exalt the divine feminine reject the world of tradition. It appears that many who consider themselves traditionalists now do so. We truly do live in the Kali Yuga!
Ted, Above in comment 51, you mention cosmogonies in which the soul is considered masculine and above the spirit, which is considered feminine. Could you please state which you are referring to? I have mostly seen references to the triad of Body-Soul-Spirit, understood as being listed in order of rank. Furthermore, various Sufi and Christian traditions speak of the soul as being feminine in relation to God, and use the symbol of the rose for the soul, because just as the rose opens to the light of the sun, so the soul opens to the love of God. Also, if we consider soul as psyche, i.e., mind, then the ordinary mind, being turbulent and chaotic, would be feminine in relation to the spirit principle, which is clear and calm, and which is antecedent to ordinary mind.
As Mircea Eliade has poinited out in many of his works, real historical events are often mythologized, frequently with an eye to metaphysical concerns and considerations.
The account of the “sons of Gods” mating with the “daughters of men” and, apparently, producing the “Nephilim”, seems to mesh with the historic/genetic evidence from ancient India.
Kadambari simply dismisses this with a wave of his hand, adopting a sort of arrogant pose as a substitute for reasoned argument.
Also Hoo, I mean no offense to you and was merely discussing in the spirit of the truth. You can feel free to continue to comment for I will no longer answer you, who already has his cosmic mind “set” as to matters people who have been studying faithfully for a lifetime are still puzzled by…
Hoo,
OK, above, I mean no one cares what you “like”….
Nobody is telling you to be friends with Dravidians or even speak to them, but you are taking things out of context from traditions you neither belong to nor understand, I think this is fair to state that.
Traditions do not pop out of thin air but are the product of countries, peoples and cultures. Do people not come to the defense of Christian matters when people say something they feel is not true regarding Christianity? I recall whenever I say something I do not understand about Christianity people rush to correct me and tell me why something is not true regarding what I said. Then why would people of other traditions not do the same when they see the doctrines twisted and made into a farce? I think Hoo you do not like it when people do not agree with you. You can believe whatever you please. You can believe you are the long lost cousin of the Buddha himself…But as I said you might do yourself a favor by reading the essential texts themselves as a start, I think even your cosmic mind might benefit from a humble exercise as that….
“I care very little for historics.”
When you have a single explanation for everything how could you care for history and palpable differences? Oh I forgot, you understand things cosmically, no need to study any civilization, your “cosmic” understanding already serves its purpose.
What do people make of the following by Ted? Perhaps he should write sci-fi which he likens his analogies to! When you read things like this, you realize why all the intelligent ancients kept certain knowledge secret, and revealed it only to those who were fit for knowledge, or could handle it. One can understand Ted’s opposition to political correctness, but is not the following in the same vein to that which he opposes?
“It was the “Sons of the Gods” who sired the Nephilim. In other words, they were all males. So, stunningly enough, the genetic evidence from India seems to confirm the Biblical account in Genesis. If these invading Aryans had no women with them, then how were they born? I mean it doesn’t stand to reason that a large Aryan invasion force would have no women at all amogst them. Yet this appears to be the case. So, as amazing as this sounds, they may very well have been a race directly created by God. This, of course, is a hard thing to accept. It sounds like bad sci-fi. But the evidence points in this direction.”
“
´no one could care less´ hahaha
You are locust. You have no idea what you have done. Words, words, words… carry on.
“To react against one’s own racial awareness, to feel in oneself a revolt against one’s own ideas, means to prove oneself not to be in harmony with one’s race ; to think that there is something ridiculous and ‘scientifically’ untenable about the Aryan and Nordic-Aryan myth means to create an alibi for a non-Aryan and non-Nordic vocation, that cannot but be related to the substratum of a corresponding race of the body, or, at least, race of the soul, in the person in question”.
Hoo, when did I ask you to go against your race? Its just when you try to explain everything in terms of a certain type that it becomes redundant over and over again, and simplistic in the sense of scientific materialism. If you prefer a certain racial type by all means your choice, who does not feel comfortable with what they are familiar with and at home with? How can anyone cange this aspect of human nature? The problem is when you apply a cerain prototype to each and every phenomenon out there that it becomes rigid and inflexible, and it becomes no different from scientific materialism. If you do not like Dravidians, who really cares? I just gave the example that they can preserve memory of certain things which have vanished from places like Afghanistan say in which these things were once living and even born…Has nothing do do with “liking” them or whatever. You can like whoever you please, no one could care less…
Cologero, you go too far to say that I am unable to grasp something or not. I have never said caste is strictly a matter of race. On this I wrote ´I don’t think Ted said anywhere that functional-class was merely/only genetically determined.´ Then I’ve cited writings on race or body from numerous sources, Evola, Tilak, the Eddas and even the Rgveda, in relation to sociopolitical stature. It is not impressive to me that you should confuse this with me saying that caste is only or always racially based. And your constant confusion in regards to race is perplexing to me. Especially after all the discussions you have read or participated in on “Evola as he is”. Why do you think you need to oppose it?
Cologero writes ´Genetic evolution, by definition, is based on chance and random variations. How can that account for a spiritually superior race?´
Nobody here has said that genetic evolution accounts for a spiritually superior race.
I don’t criticize Dravidians per se, but rather recognize them for the aliens to Nordics that they are.
This is getting really tired.
In the end:
“To react against one’s own racial awareness, to feel in oneself a revolt against one’s own ideas, means to prove oneself not to be in harmony with one’s race ; to think that there is something ridiculous and ‘scientifically’ untenable about the Aryan and Nordic-Aryan myth means to create an alibi for a non-Aryan and non-Nordic vocation, that cannot but be related to the substratum of a corresponding race of the body, or, at least, race of the soul, in the person in question”.
Now what am I supposed to think of your reactions?
If you want to have a raceless project please state so and then it will be clear from now on. It is fine with me.
Well I am not trying to be annoying, I am simply trying to find out from where Ted makes such blanket assertions. I also do not accept things because someone simply ‘asserts’ them to be so…And regarding aspects of that which he quotes; I would not trust anyone’s utterings who has not studied the doctrines carefully and thought them out for himself, the least bit is an understanding of the language, just as I know from knowledge that Plato cannot be understood without and understanding of Greek.
Again it is not a precious culture, but the principles which are immortal, and in environments where there is a real threat to such principles, that they die out forgotten, and their memory is no more, special care is needed to preserve the memory, for certain races in certain lands seem to have lost that memory, having succumbed to other influences. Everything starts from a base and even sanyasins who have no caste or religion transcending it, ultimately begin from a base…
Why do you have to bring up many, many, new unrelated points for every thing I or somebody else says? That is considered rambling and often a symptom of some psychological disorder.
It’s seems very much like a waste of time trying to answer you. There seems end to your outpourings.
I don’t need to follow any religion, or decayed superstitious rituals, for the cosmic principles are seen and felt by me. All that you cherish, your precious culture, will perish, as have uncounted cultures and tribes before it.
There were 3 editions of Revolt, originally published in 1934, then revised and enlarged in 1951, with a final revision in 1969. I have the edition by Edizioni Mediterranee, which is a reprint of the third edition.
HOO, I only mentioned Gregor in regard to Evola, not to his work in general. Despite Gergor’s important works on the actual political philosophy of Fascism, he took pains to exclude Evola as a serious thinker in that vein. You may care to look up what we wrote about Fabre d’Olivet who did in fact write about the conflict between the Hyperboreans and black races to the South.
The issue at stake, HOO, which both you and Ted are both unable to grasp, is the false conflation of race and caste. Nothing written here, nor by Evola and Guenon, would support that. You yourself alluded to the work of Dumezil who recognized a tri-functional structure, not tri-racial. Thus in the Hittite civilization you mention. Hittites are members of all three castes, there is no racial segregation implied in that in the least. Do not confuse the caste system with an apartheid system; the latter is racially based, with two parallel and separated cultures occupying the same geographical space. This is not what the caste system is.
You quote Evola: “It is not a matter of indifference that a body has this shape rather than that one: it is not by chance and without consequence.”
Exactly our point. It is not a matter of chance since it is a reflection of the spirit, not the cause of the spirit. Genetic evolution, by definition, is based on chance and random variations. How can that account for a spiritually superior race? Now Evola also wrote that if a man is not twice-born, then he is no different from any other man, whatever the color of his eyes. He is just at the first stage that is described in Individual and Becoming. Digest that for a day or two before I provide the full quote.
You can criticize the Dravidians, but they have at least kept the Vedic and Tantric Tradition alive, whereas the blue-eyes have not. There is no serious (i.e., not sensationalized by Hollywood) portrayals of the Illiad, Beowulf, the Eddas, and so on. This is fundamentally a spiritual problem, not a biological issue. This must be seen and understood, or no progress is possible.
Hoo,
Since you quote from the Norse legends, how come you do not follow that religion anymore? If you were truly loyal to your ancestors to the last degree until death would you still not be protecting the fire of the ancestral hearth with the ancestral gods? Even in India people like Zoriastrians do not stop that loyalty, many Hindus do not stop that loyalty and keep the spirit burning no matter what…Even after invasions, and even when the land resembles no longer what they knew it to be…
Aspergers is when people selectively quote from second hand sources and repeat themselves; people who have not bothered to do the hard work themselves required to familiarize themselves with the body of knowledge that is in question.
I recall there is a saying that no man is a hero to his valet de chambre. The valet de chambre sees the most trivial things in a man and is not able to see from where the greatness comes. Similarly, what can be the purport of inane statements such as the Aryans were tall, blue eyed and blonde? Perhaps they can look in the mirror and see tall, blonde and blue eyed, and say geez I am just as good, does not matter if I do not have the requisite characteristics that makes great men into what they are, just bringing down greatness to their own level of understanding…
It is interesting that reductionism is not pleasant when scientists enagage in it, yet the same reductionism is not wrong when brought in to explain matters of the spirit…
Everybody but the most vile narrow-minded person knows that there are decent people of every skin colour, and every social class
But did not Ted say that Aryans were tall, blue eyed and blonde? I do not think this was the only type. Persians who have a memory tend to think that this category did not just comprise Aryans, so its not Aspergers but certain people who think everything that is tradition is the work of tall, blondes and blue eyed people. Ancient Hindus and Persians have tall, sharp, dark hair and eyes, this is also a classical trait, even if other kinds are to be found amongst them. If I am not mistaken is this not what Ted says? The Dravidians who built Vijayanagar certainly had a far better concept of tradition than some thugs who went in there, many of whom were blond, tall and blue eyed…
Do you have an Asperger’s syndrome? You seem to think any mention of what took place on that huge landmass in South-Asia warrants a historicist lecturish rambling from yourself. Everybody but the most vile narrow-minded person knows that there are decent people of every skin colour, and every social class, the discussion on this site has never been about such obvious things. The discussion here tends to what is rare, exquisite, lost, forgotten, the best… that is what aristocracy and the Right is about. Dark people into spirituality, conscious of their ethnic tradition, aren’t rare. However spiritually-adept white dolichocephalics knowing their ethnic tradition are extremely rare.
Why won’t you allow us to discuss those things in peace? We speak here of blood and spirit(!), not of geographical locations or local cultural cuisine.
The civilization that is created in India is quite unique; it does not really compare to anything, just as what the Greeks create is distinctly Greek. One has to ask why do only the Greeks who also go into the Aegean create something unique in that time when others up in the North are hibernating? Where is their grand civilization, civilization gradually goes into these areas spreading from Greece and Rome.
Similarly, Sanskritization of tribals in India is a long affair. There are a lot of barbaric people who come into India such as the Huns and what not, they all gradually become Sanskritized. The Huns, Kushans, Parthians, Scythians all get Sanskritized. Many of there groups were barbaric initially but become Sanskritized and become Indic in this sense.
As for Tilak, he was a staunch Hindu nationalist who wanted a Hindu revival after independence; people lapped up whatever scholarship was produced back then; today we know a great deal more about India. Also no one believes that is was just a simple case of conquer and rule as simplistic people like to believe, there was gradual assimilation, a civilization does not get created overnight but takes hundreds of years. Also its not as if India just had culture only in some vague Vedic age; the Sanskritization of the South of India caused the creation of cities like Vijayanagar to oppose Islam which embodied the ideals on which classical Indic civilization was based, Vijayanagar was a thoroughly traditional civilization as late as the sixteenth century when the Sultans destoryed it. The sultans, people who were wont to quarrel amongst themselves, but did not hesitate to come together destroy an infidel city. The only invasion that caused a problem in India was the Islamic one as it just destroyed and built nothing and created nothing. And it is the Islamic legacy that has turned India the way it is, it made people wretched and opened up the way for colonialism as well.
As for the Dravidian city of Vijayanagar, it was impressive and the last traditional civilization in India, when the North became Muslim and barbaric. It was a beautiful city admired by travellers all over the world.
So traditional civilization in India basically dies after Vijanagar which revived Hinduism when the North was destroyed…
Today all you see is ruins of the architecture representing a fraction of the architecture…
http://www.hampionline.com/history/domingo.php
Thx for the information Cologero. However, Gregor is among the most objective writers on Fascism: ´In effect, the study of Italian Fascism has delivered itself of signi?cantly altered assessments over the past decades. Where, at one time, Fascism was simply dismissed as a phenomenon understood to be without intellectual substance, a right-wing excrescence that invoked violence and war, it is now more and more regularly understood to be a movement, and a regime, predicated on a reasonably well articulated belief system that engaged the rational commitment of many. For all that, there remains a residue of opinion that continues to deny Fascism the same reasoned beliefs that everyone readily grants to the political movements and regimes of Joseph Stalin or Mao Zedong. […] This book is essentially the conclusion of an argument I ?rst advanced a long time ago. Long resisted by my peers, the central claim—that Fascism was, in fact, animated by a credible and coherent belief system—has now been generally accepted by those best informed. ´ [Gregor, James A., “Mussolini’s Intellectuals”]
Now an objective account on Evola, such a thing is rare. I simply know that the things Evola seems to ascribe most importance to are things I’ve been deeply, deeply, into, or have experienced existentially, since I was a child.
What Italian edition of “Revolt…” do you have? By which publisher?
In any case, as you yourself wrote in 2006: ´Evola explains: “It is not a matter of indifference that a body has this shape rather than that one: it is not by chance and without consequence.” ´
Further summorising Evola’s super-race “Elements of Racial Education” he wrote: ´These are the main physical characteristics: tall, wide shoulder, well-proportioned limbs, slender, sinewy, and dolichocephalic (long skulled).´
This fits with R.N. Dandekar’s “Vedic Mythological Tracts”:
´the human features in Indra’s personality… Indra’s body, head, arms and hands are very often referred to (II.16.2; VIII.96.3). He is said to be golden in colour (I.7.2; VIII.66.3). His body is gigantic, his neck mighty, and his back brawny. His arms are sleek and his hands thick and firm – both right and left – being particularly well-shaped (I.102.6: IV.21.9; VI.19.3; VIII.81.1). He has handsome cheeks (or lips) and is, therefore, often called suSipra (II.12.6; 33.5), Siprin (I.29.2; III.36.10) and tawny-bearded (X.23.4). These and several other similar descriptions of Indra’s person unmistakably produce before our mind’s eye a very life-like picture of a tall, strong, well-formed, handsome, blond Aryan.´
In line with Lokmanya Bal Gangadhar Tilak’s “The Arctic Home in the Vedas”:
´the very fact that… (the Aryans) were able to establish their supremacy over the races they came across in their migrations from the original home, and that they succeeded, by conquest or assimilation, in Aryanising the latter in language, thought and religion under circumstances which could not be expected to be favourable to them, is enough to prove that the original Aryan civilization most have been of a type far higher than that of the non-Aryan races.´ [p. 440]
Tilak is very evidently proud of ´the vitality and superiority of the Aryan races, as disclosed by their conquest, by ex-termination or assimilation, of the non-Aryan races with whom they came into contact in their migrations in search of new lands from the North Pole to the Equator.´ [p. 464]
Apparently Tex isn’t the only one who is fixated. 😉
For some reason Germanic ancient scripts are also fixated on race or body in their caste descriptions.
´The Birth of Earl:
“A son had Mothir, | in silk they wrapped him,
With water they sprinkled him, | Jarl he was;
Blond was his hair, | and bright his cheeks,
Grim as a snake’s | were his glowing eyes.
[…]
The Birth of Thrall:
A son bore Edda, | with water they sprinkled him,
With a cloth his hair | so black they covered;
Thrall [slave] they named him, | . . . . .
The skin was wrinkled | and rough on his hands,
Knotted his knuckles, | . . . . .
Thick his fingers, | and ugly his face,
Twisted his back, | and big his heels.”
[“The Poetic Edda” http://www.sacred-texts.com/neu/poe/poe14.htm%5D
Fine they were tall, blue eyed and whatever. Why are some people so fixated on this? By implication however not all tall, blonde, blue eyed ones are impressive though. If you read Sanskrit, and the read descrption of the people in old texts, not all are described as tall, blonde and blue eyed. However, of course there has got to be those as well because they exised even in our family. Kashmir was ruled by Huns and all kinds of people as well as North India in the course of thousands of years. However, handsome, tall and black haired and eyed is also a trait that is typical in the North in our mythology. So you cannot say everyone is tall, blonde and blue eyed. Porus who towered over Alexander was over six feet, and Alexander who was short is impressed by his handsomeness and height. Now a short guy like Alexander was impressive too! So whats your fixation on tall people? Yes even today certain people in our regions as in Panjab are still over six feet tall…
Certian Upanishads or “secret instructions” (as people in ancient kept knowledge from those unfit for it, a good idea!) are thought to have been more popular amongst Kshatriyas, even though composed by Brahmins. …Certainly Kshatriyas might have thought that there were some things as Kshatriyas they would like to keep amongst themselves and could understand best as Kshatriyas…
Since the Upanishads are difficult to read for those who are not familiar with the contexts, Paul Deusssen’s “Philosophy of the Upanishads” is an excellent guide…Durant was a generalist in these things, Deussen spent a lifetime studying these texts…
It should be quite obvious by now that the Hyperboreans were the Aryans, who, according to Huston Smith in his “The World’s Religions’, the single best selling book on religion in US history and which is often used as a key text in comparative religion classes at the university level, were tall, blond and blue-eyed. No conventional historian has any idea where they came from. Why? I suspect the truth in this regard has been deliberately suppresed somewhere along the line.
Given that the Aryans were Hyperborean in origin and were of a ruler/warrior nature, this means that, if one holds to tradition, then this class was the superior one. And not the Brahmins, as Guenon and many others maintain.
Ted,
The upanishads contain different strands of thought depending on which one you read, although they do center around certain themes. If you were to go through the major ones as a whole, you would find the answer to your questions perhaps….
The caste system ranks people, but is caste a static thing? How is the rank of a King different from that of a sage? Why did the Kings pay respect to the sages? Of course, the two castes perhaps had functions that overlapped initially, and Kings could be as wise as the sages, then you have the Sage-King which is perhaps the ideal…I believe in Men Amongst the Ruins Evola speaks more about this system of organization. It develops over time and by the time India is at the height of civilization, it changes as well somewhat…Contrary to what people think, India was an extremely pleasant benign prosperous place to live right up to the periods of the Islamic incursions in the Middle Ages…After that is when it stagnates.
In “The Case for India” banned by the British when it first was published” : Will Durant writes : I am poorly qualified to write of India: I have merely cressed twice between east and west, and once from north to south, and seen hardly a dozen of its cieites. And though I have prepared myself with the careful study of a hundred volumes, this has all the more convinced me that my knowldege is trifling and fragmentary in the face of a civilization five thousand years old, endlessly rich in philosophy. literature, religion and art, and infinitely appealing in its ruined grandeur…”
Humble admission from a man who wrote the story of civilization in several volumes….
Will Durant wrote in the thirties…even the West was a different place back then…
Evola favorably cites this passage from the Brihad Aryanaka Upanishad: “There is NOTHING (my emphasis) greater than the warrior nobility; the priests themselves venerate the warrior when the consecration of the King occurs.”. I don’t know how much more clear that can be. Anybody who rejects the proper hierachical arrangement at this point is simply denying incontrovertable evidence.
Well I am very sorry that Colgero has singled me out and said that I should exile myself from this conversation. This attitude is a little hard to understand since I have comported myself here in a very polite and respectful manner. Colgero’s reaction is thus very strange. And quite rude, if I might say so. On a personal level, it is very disappointing. He is obviously not the man I had come to believe from his writings here. It appears as he he cannot tolerate contrary views. Apparently he cannot abide having his views challenged.
The Hindu caste system ranks people. I do not think this can be denied. What other reading can one make from Evola pointing out that a Kshatriya was in a position whereby he could actually instruct a Brahmin in higher teachings other than that he believed the Kshatriyas, like Will Durant, to be the higher of the two castes?
And traditional teachings do NOT hold that the spirit is superior to the Soul. Some PURPORTED traditional teachings hold this to be true.
Why do all traditional symbolic cosmogonies have the female (spirit)principle descend from the male principle (Soul)? Does the greater come from the lesser? No, of course not.